Around the World in 33 Keyboards

The first Turkish keyboard in the article is called the "Turkish F Keyboard", and is not in common use, although said to be better suited to write Turkish.

Re: Around the World in 33 Keyboards

#5

Post by minikites » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

Looking at the subtle layout changes for Roman characters (which I assume are based only on letter frequency for each language) I wonder if it's possible to tell if they are more, less, or the same efficiency as QWERTY is for U.S. keyboards.

Also, are there Dvorak equivalents for other languages?

Re: Around the World in 33 Keyboards

#6

Post by Yabood » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

I once bought a MacBook pro with an Arabic keyboard online thinking it had the standard US keyboard layout, it didn't, so I returned it. I just couldn't get over that return key. So tiny and cramped, basically unusable.

Re: Around the World in 33 Keyboards

#7

Post by _-__--- » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #5

Looking at the subtle layout changes for Roman characters (which I assume are based only on letter frequency for each language) I wonder if it's possible to tell if they are more, less, or the same efficiency as QWERTY is for U.S. keyboards. Also, are there Dvorak equivalents for other languages?

QWERTY was laid out (at least partially) with the intent of preventing typewriter jams and increasing productivity. This was done by placing commonly paired letters far apart from one another; maybe this was also taken into account when designing each other language's keyboard. Letter pairs will differ, presumably, so the important keys to separate will change from language to language.

That's my intuition, anyways.

Re: Around the World in 33 Keyboards

#8

Post by noja » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #5

Looking at the subtle layout changes for Roman characters (which I assume are based only on letter frequency for each language) I wonder if it's possible to tell if they are more, less, or the same efficiency as QWERTY is for U.S. keyboards. Also, are there Dvorak equivalents for other languages?

Is there any real evidence that Dvorak layouts are better? I've only seen anecdata.

Re: Around the World in 33 Keyboards

#9

Post by wolfwyrd » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

tcfunk wrote: post #2

But...but how does one type '#' on a British keyboard?

ALT+3. Dead easy right~

Re: Around the World in 33 Keyboards

#10

Post by minikites » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

_-__--- wrote: post #7

minikites wrote: post #5

Looking at the subtle layout changes for Roman characters (which I assume are based only on letter frequency for each language) I wonder if it's possible to tell if they are more, less, or the same efficiency as QWERTY is for U.S. keyboards. Also, are there Dvorak equivalents for other languages?

QWERTY was laid out (at least partially) with the intent of preventing typewriter jams and increasing productivity. This was done by placing commonly paired letters far apart from one another; maybe this was also taken into account when designing each other language's keyboard. Letter pairs will differ, presumably, so the important keys to separate will change from language to language. That's my intuition, anyways.

I knew that but that's a good reminder, did other countries have their own typewriter layouts too or did they just use US/UK English layouts?